- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37328-DB WA No. 1177 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1177 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. A VANI, W/O DR. B. V. DEVAR, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.3777, 13TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. 2. SMT. MANJULA, W/O C. S. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.115/3, ITPL MAIN ROAD, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037. 3. SMT. A. RAJITHA, W/O A.M. GOPALAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.115/3, ITP MAIN ROAD, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. NALINA MAYEGOWDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI MANJUNATHA H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-3, BENGALURU NORTH, NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU. Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37328-DB WA No. 1177 of 2025 2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU. 3. SRI AMBARISH, S/O. LATE H. N. VENKATESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 121, 1ST CROSS, KUNDALAHALLI, DODDANEKKUNDI, BENGALURU-560 037. 4. SRI RAJANNA, S/O. LATE H. N. VENKATESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. 121, 1ST CROSS, KUNDALAHALLI, DODDANEKKUNDI, BENGALURU-560 037. 5. SRI K. V. GURUMURTHY, S/O. LATE H. N. VENKATESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 121, 1ST CROSS, KUNDALAHALLI, DODDANEKKUNDI, BENGALURU-560 037. 6. SRI ASHWATH, S/O. LATE H. N. KESHAVAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO. 102, 1A CROSS, BEHIND INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, BEHIND BHADRA APARTMENT, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037. 7. SMT. PAVITRA, D/O LATE H. N. KESHAVAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.102, 1A CROSS, BEHIND INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, BEHIND BHADRA APARTMENT, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037. 8. SRI GIRISH ANAND, S/O LATE H. N. ANANDARAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37328-DB WA No. 1177 of 2025 R/AT NO.115/3, ITP MAIN ROAD, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560 037. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R-1 & 2; SMT. LATHA S SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-7) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-13854/2025 (KLR-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP No-13854/2025 (KLR-RES) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellants [Writ Petitioners] have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.13854/2025 (KLR- RES). The learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the said writ petition on the ground that the appellants have an efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [the Act]. 2. The appellants have filed the writ petition impugning an order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Special Assistant Commissioner- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37328-DB WA No. 1177 of 2025 3, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru in RA(BET)181/2001- 02 directing to mutate the names of the respondents [arrayed as respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(c)] to an extent of 0-08.12 guntas in Sy.No.115/11 and to an extent of 0-04.08 guntas in Sy.No.115/12. The relevant extract of the said order is set out below: "The above appeal of the appellants is hereby dismissed. The order dated 25-01-2002 in case No.RRT(VIVADA)29/2001- 02 passed by 1st respondent authority is hereby confirmed. The interim order of stay granted in the above appeal is hereby vacated. Further Tahasildar Bengaluru East Taluk, is directed to mutate the names of respondent No.2(a) to 2(c) to an extent of 0-08.12 guntas in sy.no.115/11 and to an extent of 0-04.08 guntas in Sy.No.115/12. Further directed to mutate the names of respondent No.3a and 3b measuring to an extent of 0-04.04 guntas in Sy.No.115/12, and to an extent of 0-18.12 guntas in Sy.No.15/13 situated at Kundalahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk." 3. It is the appellants case that the said order effectively runs contrary to decree obtained in favour of the appellants and therefore, mutation entries contrary to the decree of a Civil Court could not be entered into. 4. As noted above, the writ petition has not been dismissed on merits but the Court has declined to entertain the same on account of the writ petitioners having efficacious alternate remedy. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37328-DB WA No. 1177 of 2025 Undisputedly, in terms of Section 136(3) of the Act the appellants have an efficacious remedy. Section 136(3) of the Act is set out below: "136. (3) The Deputy Commissioner may, on his own motion or on application of a party, call for and examine any records made under section 127 and section 129 and pass such orders as he may deem fit: Provided that no order shall be passed except after hearing the party who would be adversely affected by such order." 5. In view of the above, the appellant has an equally efficacious remedy to assail the order dated 21.02.2025. Therefore, we find no infirmity with the impugned order. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, we consider it apposite to clarify that if appellants avail of alternate remedy within a period of two weeks from date, the same would be considered on merits uninfluenced by any question of delay. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28